This feels about right to me as well.
The book might be as bad as he says, but it can't possibly be as poorly written as that review.
A) When someone is talking, especially me, PAY ATTENTION. That means no reading, signing letters, drawing up cards and no side conversations. We’ve having too much “We never said that” or “I didn’t hear that.”
B) We have to have an open exchange, BUT we don’t need unnecessary and prolonged attempts to win a point.
C) We have to understand there will be differences and respect each other’s views.
D) Don’t sulk if your idea gets outvoted or I turn it down.
E) Don’t think that you are the only one who should or can make suggestions or be critical of your coaching area.
F) As for myself, I may present some “way-out” ideas to get some reaction or to stimulate some discussion (and to make sure we don’t have “yes men&rdquo. I may even change sides in a discussion.
G) Everybody needs to show strong interest in EVERYTHING that we do. We should be ready to learn from each other and help each other. I intend to sit in on as many meetings as possible.
I’ve talked about this before, but let me say it again. When dealing with the press be careful to emphasize, “We are young, eager, coachable, but we have a long way to go.” TRY NOT TO BE QUOTABLE.
And don’t turn your head if you see a player not abiding by our rules. I’m talking about earrings, beards, studies, appearances, attitude . . . These things equal the “Penn State Way” Players must believe that there are rules that make Penn State special — unique.
And remember: Team morale, team attitude, this is my concern. I want input and suggestions from you. But I have to set the tone."
Now this is a well-written review.
That list of "talking points" is really just a long-winded way of Paterno saying "I'm in charge, and don't fuck with me." He also seems really impressed with himself. Oh, you're gonna present some "way out" ideas to weed out "yes men"? You may even *gasp* be on "both sides" of an argument?
I'm reading the book right now. Paterno was a big part of my life/job in the 1970s and I almost have to read it. Plus, Pos is the best sports writer on the planet. His talent shines through in this book. There have been biographies of Paterno before but none of them were written with the personal flair that Pos gives this one. He just looks at life through a different prism than any other sports writer.
That seems to be too nuanced of a take for a lot of people. I've been surprisingly disappointed in Poz's books, I think his voice works better in his articles, but I'll have to give the book a read.
Unnecessarily is my word but Pos did note that Paterno lost the open manner he once had with the media in his earlier years. He got tired of recruiting, dealing with alumni, speaking engagements. "just let me coach football" was his complaint when asked to deal with what he termed "distractions." I think this mentality is part of what led him to ignore the dangers Sandusky's case presented to him in 1998.
I'm not sure that makes sense. As I see it, WAR reflects how players have actually played, taking out park effects and the like, and so differences between WAR and real record would be more reflective of whether they have underachieved or overachieved in high/low leverage situations.
Indeed, a great column. His ability to find the most optimistic view in most situations is really inspiring. And he wonders why his daughter is like that? This also made him not the best person to be involved with the whole Paterno thing, but I haven't read the book and don't really know his take.
http://www.shermanreport.com/?p=4418
I understand what Pos is saying, but what the hell do you expect from people that would be culpable in this thing. This position, while appearing to have some level of critical thought in that it goes against the grain, fails to critically examine what these people would say. Of course they would say the email doesn't mean what you think it means.
You have missed out on some fantastic writing, particularly during the Olympics, but I can't blame you. His single hazy event comment was a humongous error in judgement. The fact that he's still defending Paterno is a little surprising. Even if Paterno was only 5% culpable(and that's a low ball estimate, I think he has a LOT of blame here) in allowing children to get molested, he would deserve absolutely no defense.
I'd say what terrynever has been saying over the months about Paterno has merit to it. Paterno had an extremely good side during his early to mid years and unfortunately lost sense of who he was in his later years, however many years that turned out to be.
Pos was originally intrigued by all the players and their sons who Paterno coached over 55 years. Pos wanted to make that the theme of the book. Fathers and sons -- right up Pos's sentimental alley. Best laid plans went up in smoke.
Joe's Olympics work covering various fringe sports and the athletes who participate in them was much like his columns on the World Cup in 2010 - he can take take a sport that have no interest in and not only write a must-read column, but actually make me care about it (well, at least a little bit).
You know, normally I agree with a lot of what you post even though you are a reprobate but I simply cannot see how they will whitewash Paterno. If anything, Posnanski is the most likely person to be upset with the final outcome. Not only will they take his source material and give it the screenplay-canned-spam treatment but they are likely to make it thematically a lot darker than Joe would like.
What does this have to do with Posnanski?Dr. Cusimano from The Sopranos (Robert Lupone) is a pretty good Sandusky look alike.
Just curious...How many people share this viewpoint? How many formerly devoted member's of Pos's Posse have sworn him off and refuse to read a single sentence that he writes. Now that the book is out and there is no need to speculate on Posnanski's viewpoint re: Paterno, does anyone believe that the book will have any lasting impact on Posnanski, both financially and reputation wise?
Can't say I'm surprised.
